2018 (8) TMI 44 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - The charge of mis-declaration is sustainable as the Appellant could not show any evidence that they had instructed/ informed courier about licence fee amount to be included in assessable value - the goods has been rightly confiscated - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of value in the Bill of Entry.
2. Inclusion of licence fee in assessable value.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Mis-declaration of value in the Bill of Entry
The case involved the import of Beta Tapes with a discrepancy in the declared value. The Customs authorities alleged that the importer attempted to clear the consignment by mis-declaring the value, leading to a Show Cause Notice. The Adjudicating Authority found that the importer had not included the licence fee in the assessable value of the goods, which was considered a breach of Customs Act provisions. The Adjudicating Authority proposed to enhance the declared value and impose penalties under relevant sections of the Customs Act.

Issue 2: Inclusion of licence fee in assessable value
The importer contended that the mis-declaration was unintentional and that they had instructed the courier to detain the goods for filing regular Bills of Entry. However, the Adjudicating Authority held that the licence fee should have been included in the assessable value as per Customs Valuation Rules. The Authority found that the courier was aware of the licence value but attempted to clear the goods under a lower value category. The breach of provisions attracted penalties, leading to the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties.

Issue 3: Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
The importer appealed the decision, arguing for a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty. The Appellate Tribunal considered the facts and upheld the confiscation of goods due to sustained mis-declaration. However, considering the duty amount arising from the increased assessable value, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty significantly. The Tribunal modified the impugned order, reducing the redemption fine to ?50,000 and the penalty to ?25,000, partially allowing the appeal in favor of the importer.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of mis-declaration of value, inclusion of licence fee in assessable value, and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, providing a detailed analysis of the case and the legal principles involved.